Vicarious Liability: An Ever Expanding Concept?
本文探讨了英国最高法院在Cox案中如何将替代责任扩展至非雇佣关系，如监狱与囚犯之间，并分析了这一发展对服务合同的影响。
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court revisited the nature of the relationship between defendant and tortfeasor which gives rise to vicarious liability in Cox v Ministry of Justice.1 The developments in tort law raise questions about the position in respect of contracts for services. Traditionally, the doctrine of vicarious liability was confined to cases where a tortfeasor was employed by a defendant. However, in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society2 (the ‘Christian Brothers’ case), the Supreme Court recognised that a relationship can give rise to vicarious liability in the absence of a contract of employment,3 subject to there being a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tort in question. In Cox, this principle was considered in the novel context of the relationship between prison service and prisoner. The Supreme Court held that the prison service was vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner who had injured one of its employees while carrying out activities assigned to him by the service.